Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Red lines in the Iranian sand
Asia Times ^ | 1/13/2006 | Praful Bidwai

Posted on 01/12/2006 8:12:58 AM PST by Dark Skies

NEW DELHI - Now that Iran has broken the seals it put two-and-a-half years ago on an atomic research facility at Natanz, 250 kilometers south of Tehran, it has passed a "red line" that makes a tough response almost inevitable.

British, French and German foreign ministers (the European Union 3 - EU-3) were due to meet in Berlin on Thursday to call for an emergency session this month of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, which would then discuss a referral of the dispute to the Security Council.

European officials warned that Tehran would have to reinstate the seals and refrain from all the activities it announced this week if it wanted to avoid a UN referral. Tehran has given no indication that it will back down.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's head, said by resuming nuclear fuel research in defiance of previous agreements, "Tehran had crossed a red line ... We are at a stage where what is happening this week could turn into a major crisis."

The major nuclear weapon states, led by the United States and the EU-3, have warned Iran against pursuing even research that might lead to uranium enrichment. Iran insists that it will go ahead with the research, but that production of nuclear fuel remains suspended. (Currently, Iran is only converting uranium into hexafluoride gas at Isfahan, not enriching it.)

As both sides ratchet up the confrontation, the whiff of conflict hangs in the air, with distressing implications for the whole world.

Oil prices rose on Thursday, extending gains amid mounting concerns over the potential fallout from Iran's pursuit of its nuclear ambitions, according to market analysts. US crude oil futures rose 56 cents to US$64.50 a barrel, after rising 57 cents on Wednesday.

"The issue of Iran's international relations continues to rise to the fore as a major potential area of market concern. We continue to see the situation as representing the major upside risk for oil prices this year," analysts at Barclays Capital said in a report, according to Reuters.

The current crisis is likely to be more serious than in September, when the US dragged Iran before the board of governors of the IAEA, which held it "non-compliant" with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

With attitudes hardening, Iran could soon face tough sanctions from the Security Council in a telescoped replay of a part of the drama over Iraq between 2000 and 2003, which eventually led to its invasion and occupation.

There are three differences, though. Iraq's alleged nuclear activities were clandestine - although they did not result in a capability to make nuclear weapons of mass destruction, as Western governments falsely claimed. By contrast, Iran's current activities are transparent and taking place right in the presence of IAEA inspectors.

Second, Iraq in 2002-03 had no civilian nuclear program worth the name. Most of its clandestine military nuclear infrastructure was dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War under a tough UN Security Council mandate.

Iran has a civilian nuclear program, stretching from the mining of uranium to its enrichment to constructing a power reactor. Also, unlike Iraq, it can legitimately invoke its right to peaceful nuclear activities under the NPT, subject to IAEA inspections. This right is affirmed under Articles 1 and 4 of the treaty.

Third, Iraq in 2003 was a weak, militarily near-disabled country with an economy crippled by decade-long sanctions. Its totally undemocratic state had very little legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

Iran is a culturally vibrant, self-confident society with a strong economy, which now stands further boosted by high oil prices. It is a middle-level military power with a popularly elected government. It will not be easy to isolate Iran, unlike Iraq.

"In fact," said Hari Vasudevan, professor of international relations at Calcutta University, "Iran enjoys a unique strategic advantage because of the highly troubled situation in Iraq, which the US has failed to quell." He added: "Sixty percent of Iraq's population is Shi'ite, and Iran wields enormous influence in Iraq. It has so far desisted from fomenting further trouble in Iraq, but could do so if cornered and provoked by the US and its allies."

Iran has two more advantages in its favor. It has been working closely with Russia in its civilian nuclear program. Russia is helping it build a power reactor at Bushehr, due to be commissioned this year.

It also enjoys a degree of support and sympathy from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and China. The bulk of the NAM group at the IAEA, barring India and a handful of small countries, abstained from or voted against the US-sponsored September 24 resolution against Iran. As did China and Russia.

"All this might only frustrate US efforts to diplomatically isolate Iran," said Qamar Agha, a Middle East expert at the Center for West and Central Asian Studies at the Jamia Millia Islamia university in New Delhi. "Western Europe is far too dependent upon Iran's oil and gas to go to extreme lengths in sustaining sanctions that cripple Iran's energy generation. Therefore, the US might be tempted to use military force, jointly with Israel, to bomb select facilities in Iran."

In recent weeks, US Central Intelligence Agency director Porter Goss visited Turkey and briefed a number of other states in Iran's neighborhood on US plans for attacking Iran. Israel has already declared that Iran's nuclear program "can be destroyed".

The German magazine Der Spiegel wrote that Goss had asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission to attack Iran. It also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan had been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans.

And Israel's Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu has nostalgically invoked his country's 1981 attack on Iraq's experimental nuclear reactor under construction.

A number of US doctrinal pronouncements, and reports about a recently approved US "global strike plan", with a nuclear option, suggest that a preemptive US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, either unilateral or jointly with Israel, cannot be ruled out.

A former Indian intelligence officer, Vikram Sood, said that such an attack might use nuclear weapons. "A conventional attack on Iran would be expensive and not quite cost-effective. It would allow [for] Iranian retaliation." To preempt retaliation, the US might use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's underground facilities.

"The tragedy unfolding," said Sood, "is that if the US believes that its adversary possesses or has the intention to possess WMD [weapons of mass destruction], then it is justified to consider this a threat to itself and to US forces in the region. It must, therefore, act preemptively. The fear also is that unlike in the case of Iraq when considerable time was spent in building the case, this time the attack will be sudden and actual justifications will be given later."

Any such attack would break the 60-year-old, very welcome, taboo against the use of nuclear weapons - with extraordinarily negative consequences for global peace and security.

Such an outcome can only be prevented if the West moves away from coercive diplomacy to isolate Iran and opens serious talks with it, and if the nuclear weapons states rethink their own policies.

As the West accuses Iran of nursing nuclear ambitions, it has itself no intention of reducing nuclear arms. The US has embarked on a plan to expand its nuclear capability both upward, through "Star Wars", and downward, through bunker-buster bombs. Similarly, Britain has announced a $40 billion replacement project for the Trident missile.

Smaller nuclear states such as Israel, India and Pakistan have set negative examples.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: ahmadinejad; iran; iraniannuclear; islam; islamofascism; nuclear; wot
Interesting article suggesting that strike on Iran will be nuclear.

A former Indian intelligence officer, Vikram Sood, said that such an attack might use nuclear weapons. "A conventional attack on Iran would be expensive and not quite cost-effective. It would allow [for] Iranian retaliation." To preempt retaliation, the US might use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's underground facilities.

1 posted on 01/12/2006 8:13:00 AM PST by Dark Skies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
... this time the attack will be sudden, and the justifications will come later...

You betcha. If you think they have the deployable nuclear WMDs, you don't telegraph you're coming 6 months in advance (like in the Iraq case). One morning we might just wake up and find out Iranians are missing some research facilities, and there's lots of "weather" over them.
2 posted on 01/12/2006 8:32:32 AM PST by farlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farlander
IIRC, the nuclear bunker buster is simply a nuclear warhead on a top-of-the-line conventioal bunker buster like this...


3 posted on 01/12/2006 8:36:04 AM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
At some point this article stopped being news and started being blatant advocacy against the US doing anything about Iranian nuclear ambitions.
4 posted on 01/12/2006 8:47:46 AM PST by .cnI redruM (To Live in the past is to die in the Present - Bill Belichick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

Thing of beauty, but I think this time it'll have to be nuclear tipped. They've buried stuff too damn deep.


5 posted on 01/12/2006 8:52:28 AM PST by farlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM
Right...I ignored that part.

What I found most interesting was the simple conclusion that anything less than nuclear would be basically ineffective. Presumably, the Iranian facilities are buried really deep...much too deep for conventional penetration.

6 posted on 01/12/2006 8:53:26 AM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: farlander

A nuke would also remind 'em who are and what we can do when we "play rough."


7 posted on 01/12/2006 8:55:48 AM PST by Little Ray (I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: farlander
Here's an interesting link on earth penetrating weapons.
8 posted on 01/12/2006 9:04:27 AM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

Yep, it's been a while since we incinerated buncha people who meant us harm. People forget, that in WWII, we obliterated whole cities with conventional weapons. If anyone thinks that the counter-population cannot be done today they're sadly mistaken. And I think we need to give everyone a reminder of what that could look like. Might as well be the mullahs.


9 posted on 01/12/2006 9:06:04 AM PST by farlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

Hmmmm. Doesn't sound too promising. Pretty much what I draw from the article is that whether we use a earth penetrator warhead on the nuclear sites, or we do an airburst over a populated area, the effect will be very similar. Millions would die either way. So, by logic, then, we tell the mullahs to drop the program or get the population centers incinerated.


10 posted on 01/12/2006 9:17:23 AM PST by farlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies
There are three differences, though. Iraq's alleged nuclear activities were clandestine - although they did not result in a capability to make nuclear weapons of mass destruction, as Western governments falsely claimed. By contrast, Iran's current activities are transparent and taking place right in the presence of IAEA inspectors.

Apparently it's OK to break the law when everybody knows about it. Although the IAEA is on the ground now, it is important to realize that only a handful of people would know about this “originally clandestine program” if it weren't exposed by Iranian dissidents. The Iranian regime is so widely hated internally that they can't keep their nuclear secrets... So yes, all of these violations are taking place in the presence of IAEA inspectors! The fact that it’s on the table is all the more reason to take tangible steps to prevent the threat these violations pose to the community of nations. The sooner the better.

11 posted on 01/12/2006 9:20:02 AM PST by humint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

What is the rule on posting news from UPI? There is a very good follow-up on this story at UPI?


12 posted on 01/12/2006 9:22:20 AM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: farlander
Yep, it's been a while since we incinerated buncha people who meant us harm. People forget, that in WWII, we obliterated whole cities with conventional weapons. If anyone thinks that the counter-population cannot be done today they're sadly mistaken. And I think we need to give everyone a reminder of what that could look like.


13 posted on 01/12/2006 9:27:52 AM PST by humint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: humint

Yep, been done before.


14 posted on 01/12/2006 9:39:12 AM PST by txhurl (we hooked 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: humint

I was watching the history channel last night and they referred to these raids as "TERROR RAIDS".....
THC has taken a left turn ever since
TIME joined with WARNER


15 posted on 01/12/2006 9:41:06 AM PST by Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Robe; humint

Actually, they were terror raids. They were specifically designed for counter population to break enemy population's morale and generally terrorize, reducing the will to fight and reducing the industrial production.

My point is - so ? War is hell. Don't attack us and we won't incinerate you. Don't threaten to attack us and we won't incinerate you. How difficult concept is this ? As I said earlier, some people need to be reminded of this concept.


16 posted on 01/12/2006 9:47:55 AM PST by farlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: farlander

I think we will have to pay a very high price to invade Iran and overthrow the leadership but that it needs to be done. I do not think we should use nuclear weapons at all. Also consider the fact that we would not even destroy a mosque to get at the enemy. Do you really think we'll kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians to get at the Iranian leadership?


17 posted on 01/12/2006 11:47:11 AM PST by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quant5

If it comes to invading, the gloves will be off. Iranian military is far better equipped, organized than Iraq's was. The restraint we have shown so far would be out the window. We couldn't restrain ourselves, if we wanted to win.

The point is that the Mullah's and Islamists believe we don't have the stomach to destroy them. They themselves have said there are no civilians. The logic goes we adopt the same rules of engagement, and we make an example. Iraq was an example of how quickly we can defeat someone. Iran would have to be an example of what brutality can be, because that is the war they're fighting. They have no such reservations. From all the recent articles discussing demographic trends, they believe as long as we don't have the stomach to destroy them, they can continue towards their objectives, and eventually, a few decades from now, they win by default. I think we could show them where that can lead them.

And guess what, counter-population tactics are not even illegal under Geneva convention.


18 posted on 01/12/2006 11:54:41 AM PST by farlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dark Skies

this time the attack will be sudden and actual justifications will be given later."

It is possible that a nuclear strike would be used, certainly that would demonstrate our will to use weapons
of that type, should Iran try to retaliate.

And just how would the world PROVE any nuclear blast was
ours, it could have been Iran's.


19 posted on 01/12/2006 4:26:06 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
And just how would the world PROVE any nuclear blast was ours, it could have been Iran's.

That's a good point, but if there were 200+- blasts, it might be clear...or not.

20 posted on 01/12/2006 4:29:24 PM PST by Dark Skies ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants." -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson